The REAL reason why the US invaded Iraq!

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Finding the REAL reasons for just about anything that has happened in 

the past 50-70 years is far harder than one would think.

Sawtul, I seem to remember, was thoroughly caught up by the Illuminati 

agenda and frequently mentions various secret societies supposedly 

responsible for this or that inexplicable historical anomaly. Besides these 

immediately obvious secret societies and their converging agendas, there 

is a far more menacing and frightening elite group directly responsible 

for practically every political and social event since the discovery of oil in 

Texas.

Coming to conclusions such as the delusional secret alliance between the 

US-Iran-Shia, is actually the SIMPLE answer to what is a complex trail of 

clues left by members of the Bilderberg organisation and the Trilateral 

Commission. 

Here's an extract from an interesting paper available at Globalresearch.ca:

Imperial Playground: The Story of Iran in Recent History

by Andrew G. Marshal

     In the 70s, the Shah of Iran, which was at the time a secular [non-

religious] nation, was stepping up the process of industrializing the 

country of Iran. At this time, Europe, especially at the behest of Germany 

and France, was pursuing greater cooperation and integration, and in 

doing so, created the European Monetary System (EMS), under which the 

nine European Community member states made the decision to have their 

central banks work together to align their currencies to one another. This 

would allow for greater competition between the Anglo-American 

dominated �petrodollar monetary system� and the rising European 

Community, which was still feeling the effects of the OPEC oil shock. Part 

of the agreement between Germany and France was to develop an 

agreement with OPEC countries in the Middle East to exchange high-

technology and equipment for a stable-priced oil supply. The Anglo-

Americans saw this as a threat to their hegemony over the oil market, and 

so, �Carter had unsuccessfully sought to persuade the Schmidt [German] 

government, under the Carter administration�s new Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Act, to abandon export of virtually all nuclear technology to 

the developing sector, [underdeveloped countries, i.e. Iran] on the false 

argument that peaceful nuclear plant technology threatened to proliferate 

nuclear weapons, an argument which uniquely stood to enhance the 

strategic position of the Anglo-American petroleum-based financial 

establishment.� This effort to persuade Germany was to no avail, so the 

Anglo-Americans had to pursue a more drastic policy change.

      This policy formed when, �In November 1978, President Carter named 

the Bilderberg group�s George Ball, another member of the Trilateral 

Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the 

National Security Council�s Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington 

drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalist Islamic 

opposition of Ayatollah Khomeni. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of 

the lead �case officers� in the new CIA-led coup against the man their 

covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.� This is further 

corroborated by author and journalist, Webster Tarpley in his book, 

George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, in which he stated, �Carter 

and Brzezinski had deliberately toppled the Shah of Iran, and deliberately 

installed [Ayatollah] Khomeni in power. This was an integral part of 

Brzezinski�s �arc of crisis� geopolitical lunacy, another made-in-London 

artifact which called for the US to support the rise of Khomeni, and his 

personal brand of fanaticism, a militant heresy within Islam. U.S. arms 

deliveries were made to Iran during the time of the Shah; during the 

short-lived Shahpour Bakhtiar government at the end of the Shah�s reign; 

and continuously after the advent of Khomeni.� The Defense and Foreign 

Affairs Daily reported in their March 2004 edition that, �In 1978 while the 

West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi 

from the throne, [Ayatollah] Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would 

listen not to allow �Ayatollah� Ruhollah Khomeini and his velayat faghih 

(Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah 

Shariatmadari noted: �We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a 

brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run 

a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been 

achieved at such great cost and effort�.� This was exactly the point of 

putting them in power, as it would destabilize an industrializing country, 

and as William Engdahl further pointed out, �Their scheme was based on 

a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as 

presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on 

assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis� scheme, 

which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, 

endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeni, in 

order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal 

and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage 

autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, 

Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread 

in what he termed an �Arc of Crisis,� which would spill over into the 

Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.�

      Bernard Lewis� concept was also discussed in a 1979 article in Foreign 

Affairs, the highly influential seasonal journal of international relations 

put forward by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the pre-eminent 

policy think tank in the United States, whose leadership and many 

members also share membership with the Trilateral Commission and 

Bilderberg Group. The article stated, �The �arc of crisis� has been defined 

as an area stretching from the Indian subcontinent in the east to the Horn 

of Africa in the west. The Middle East constitutes its central core. Its 

strategic position is unequalled: it is the last major region of the Free 

World directly adjacent to the Soviet Union, it holds in its subsoil about 

three-fourths of the proven and estimated world oil reserves, and it is the 

locus [central point] of one of the most intractable conflicts of the 

twentieth century: that of Zionism versus Arab nationalism. Moreover, 

national, economic and territorial conflicts are aggravated by the 

intrusion of religious passions in an area which was the birthplace of 

Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and by the exposure, in the twentieth 

century, to two competing appeals of secular modernization: Western and 

communist,� and further stated, �Against the background of these basic 

facts, postwar American policy in the Middle East has focused on three 

major challenges: security of the area as against Soviet threats to its 

integrity and independence, fair and peaceful resolution of the Arab-

Israeli conflict, and safe access to its oil.�

- - - - -

William Engdahl continued in his examination of the 1979 revolution/

coup in Iran, of which he said, �The coup against the Shah, like that 

against Mossadeq in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, 

with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public �credit� for getting 

rid of the �corrupt� Shah, while the British characteristically remained in 

the background. During 1978, negotiations were under way between the 

Shah�s government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year oil 

extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a 

British �offer� which demanded exclusive rights to Iran�s future oil output, 

while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on 

British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the 

verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, 

with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere.� 

The strategy was to have �religious discontent against the Shah [which] 

could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and US 

intelligence,� and so �As Iran�s domestic economic troubles grew [as a 

result of the British refusing to buy Iranian oil in a strategy of economic 

pressure], American �security� advisers to the Shah�s Savak secret police 

implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner 

calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, 

the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of �human 

rights� under the Shah,� and the strategy even entailed using the BBC 

(British Broadcasting Corporation), which �gave the Ayatollah Khomeni a 

full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British 

government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah�s 

government an equal chance to reply.� Further, �during the Christmas 

season of 1979, one Captain Sivash Setoudeh, an Iranian naval officer and 

the former Iranian military attach� before the breaking of diplomatic 

relations between the United States and Iran [in 1979], was arranging 

arms deliveries to [Ayatollah] Khomeni out of a premises of the US Office 

of Naval Research in Arlington, Virginia.�

      With the successful revolution/coup in Iran in 1979, the Shah was 

exiled to Egypt, and back in the United States, Bilderberg and Trilateral 

Commission co-founder and international banker David Rockefeller was 

approached by Princess Ashraf, the sister of the deposed Shah, who was 

suffering from cancer, and �she was turning for help to the man who ran 

one of the leading U.S. banks [Chase Manhattan � now, JP Morgan Chase], 

one which had made a fortune serving as the Shah�s banker for a quarter 

century and handling billions of dollars in Iran�s assets. Ashraf�s message 

was straightforward. She wanted Rockefeller to intercede with Jimmy 

Carter and ask the President to relent on his decision against granting the 

Shah refuge in the United States,� and further, �The new Iranian 

government also wanted Chase Manhattan to return Iranian assets, which 

Rockefeller put at more than $1 billion in 1978, although some estimates 

ran much higher.� And so, �a public campaign by Rockefeller � along with 

[Henry] Kissinger and former Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman John 

McCloy � to find a suitable home in exile for the Shah� was undertaken, 

and �Rockefeller also pressed the Shah�s case personally with Carter when 

the opportunity presented itself. On April 9, 1979, at the end of an Oval 

Office meeting on another topic, Rockefeller handed Carter a one-page 

memo describing the views of many foreign leaders disturbed by recent 

U.S. foreign policy actions, including Carter�s treatment of the Shah.� 

According to a Time Magazine article in 1979, �Kissinger concedes that 

he then made telephone calls to �three senior officials� and paid two 

personal visits to [Secretary of State] Vance to argue that a U.S. visa 

should be granted the Shah. He expressed that view volubly in private 

conversations with many people, including journalists. He said that the 

last of his direct pleas was made in July. He and Rockefeller then sought 

to find asylum elsewhere for the Shah. Rockefeller found a temporary 

residence in the Bahamas, and Kissinger persuaded the government of 

Mexico to admit the Shah on a tourist visa.� Eventually their efforts were 

successful, as it was further revealed, �The late Shah had friends at Chase 

Manhattan Bank and in the highest echelons of trilateral power. David 

Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger played instrumental roles in arranging 

the Shah�s exile and shaping US policy toward Iran.�